QuickTime (7?) Cocoa on Mac OS X 10.3 ?

benjamin frerebenjamin frere
Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
By extrapolating what we can read on <a href="http://www.macosrumors.com/"; target="_blank">macosrumors</a>,

can we expect a new revamped Cocoa QuickTime in Panther ?



[ 03-15-2003: Message edited by: Benjamin Frere ]</p>

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    mac os x addictmac os x addict Posts: 322member
    Lets talk about Panther after WWDC. We will get a lot of info and probably a demo of it and a new "New Version" page on the Mac OS X page on Apple's site. Other than that, only the developers and Apple know what is going on with Panther, may be only select developers.
  • Reply 2 of 18
    spartspart Posts: 2,060member
    Meader knows about as much as we do. Probably less, as he believes some of the emails he gets.
  • Reply 3 of 18
    blackbirdblackbird Posts: 33member
    they really need to redo the quicktime ui in more of look simmilar to itunes, let it have playlist management and full-screen (dammit)
  • Reply 4 of 18
    benjamin frerebenjamin frere Posts: 20member
    Now that OS 9 is dead for the development's part, I hope that the improvement will be VERY significant. And yes, full screen for the free version would be great.



    We can expect a better integration to the system, I hope...



    It's a need for having more switchers.



    Damn OS 9...
  • Reply 5 of 18
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    I've noticed that Apple is moving a lot over to Cocoa. Java just leapt over to Cocoa, to my surprise. It's not that hard to understand, since they're no longer developing for OS 9, and Cocoa has that great big advantage of being easier and quicker to develop for (not to mention maintain).



    The most interesting thing about a Cocoa QuickTime (besides the obvious non-sucky QT integration with Cocoa, which would be welcome) is QT for Windows. Right now QT for Windows is basically a port of the Mac Toolbox to x86 (one reason why it's much less impressive on Windows). Unless Apple's splitting the code base, Cocoa QT would imply a resurrection &mdash; if only internally &mdash; of Yellow Box.



    It might be a real break from previous QuickTimes programmatically, but then programming QuickTime is not pretty right now.
  • Reply 6 of 18
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Possibly. Making it even more "clean" carbon would be nice. But Quicktime is freakin' huge, and porting it (rewriting it - I don't imagine the code base it too portable) to cocoa would therefore be a freakin' huge job.



    I would be less surprised if Apple trashed the current QuickTime and started from scratch using a portable code base (FFMpeg, anyone?).



    Barto
  • Reply 7 of 18
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Having spent the last two months writing a Cocoa based wrapper for QT... ow. My head. I can actually see the Apple folk keeping much of the underlying QT code (it's in C) and cleaning it up to the point that it integrates well with CoreFoundation, then rolling it all up in Cocoa API goodness. At least, that's what *I* was trying to do, except they have a slight advantage in having the actual source code.



    (BTW, my wrapper library worked rather well for movie editing, thankyouverymuchforasking.)
  • Reply 8 of 18
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member
    While Apple will probably do well with the code itself, it had also better do miracles with the business model for Quicktime itself.



    QT is getting its butt kicked all over town by Real Networks and, to a lesser extent, Redmond.



    While QT remains a mainstay of the media creation toolkit, Apple bet the farm on the MPEG-4 video streaming business taking off, before those geniuses decided to go for a cash grab and killed any enthusiam for the model by the smaller webcasters.



    And the bigger webcasters don't care, since Big Media prefers that web streaming never rival cable and satellite in the first place.



    The only real reason to get QT Pro is to get full screen viewing, which has never been a great value since there's been little QT content to watch. (Movie trailers ARE commercials y'know...)



    The Quicktime Player was essentially one of the first free iApps, and Apple is paying for the iApp R&D through Web Services. e.g. iPhoto prints and books or the upcoming music service through iTunes.



    After the Apple Music service debuts, Cupertino needs to ink deals with a 24 hour news service, a sports network and a couple others, and offer "real" value to Pro purchasers for a monthly fee.



    And make an (iCal-like?) TV guide service to any other Quicktime-based streamer that wants to play.
  • Reply 9 of 18
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    It could be that Apple gives up on QuickTime Player.



    Mac OS X Media Frameworks (or something like that), and a new WMP style (only not evil) movie finding/viewing app.



    Unlike Real and WMP, Quicktime is part of the OS. It is needed for the OS to decode graphics. Maybe Apple would simply throw in the towel then back MP4 (and 3rd party players) all it can.



    Barto
  • Reply 10 of 18
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    <blockquote><hr>Originally posted by Barto:

    <strong>Possibly. Making it even more "clean" carbon would be nice. But Quicktime is freakin' huge, and porting it (rewriting it - I don't imagine the code base it too portable) to cocoa would therefore be a freakin' huge job.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't imagine that moving Java over to Cocoa was the business of a weekend either, but they did it.



    It's a long term investment, and they already have a headstart in Cocoa: NeXTTime, NeXT's reverse-engineered, QuickTime-compatible media layer. If they've spent the last three or so years building that up while continuing to update the Carbon app, they could pull it off. Nothing says that development on a Cocoa QuickTime 7 started after the release of QT6, after all. They could have quietly built it up without tagging it with a version number, and when it's up to par, they could pin it down to a specific version and prep it for release.



    Developers using QT (including our own Kickaha) have griped and moaned about QT's Mozillian API for years now. This would be a really good chance for Apple to make it that much more attractive - and therefor accessible from less geeky environments such as AppleScript Studio.
  • Reply 11 of 18
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    When we're talking Cocoa Quicktime, is that the player or the framework or both? How would the Windows framework for QT be affected by this -- any cross platform problems?
  • Reply 12 of 18
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    <blockquote><hr>Originally posted by BuonRotto:

    <strong>When we're talking Cocoa Quicktime, is that the player or the framework or both? How would the Windows framework for QT be affected by this -- any cross platform problems?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think we're talking about both, but the Player doesn't exactly matter much. A Cocoa QuickTime Player called "X-Movie" already exists. Its development was abandoned because Cocoa QuickTime sucked at that time (dunno if it still does).



    As to cross-platform problems: yes. See earlier posts about YellowBox.
  • Reply 13 of 18
    benjamin frerebenjamin frere Posts: 20member
    Yes, a better OS integration of the frameworks and optimisation is more important than a Cocoa player. Rewriting only the player in Cocoa is not difficult at all I think.



    I can't wait to have a kick-ass new extremely fast QuickTime 7 full Cocoa, and full OS X integrated



    It's a need for Apple if they began to Cocoaize FCP etc...
  • Reply 14 of 18
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 15 of 18
    mac os x addictmac os x addict Posts: 322member
    On deck, 10.2.5, maybe 10.2.6 after that. Then we can have the fun of a brand new pussy.........10.3
  • Reply 16 of 18
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    <blockquote><hr>Originally posted by Benjamin Frere:

    <strong>Yes, a better OS integration of the frameworks and optimisation is more important than a Cocoa player. Rewriting only the player in Cocoa is not difficult at all I think.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Not really. I had a QT player that played full screen or in window, with transparency as an option, in 267 lines of Cocoa, including comments and whitespace.



    For just playback, NSMovieView/NSMovie are fine. Editing, etc, are a bit more of a pain.
  • Reply 17 of 18
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    <blockquote><hr>Originally posted by Kickaha:

    <strong>



    Not really. I had a QT player that played full screen or in window, with transparency as an option, in 267 lines of Cocoa, including comments and whitespace. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    cool... link?
  • Reply 18 of 18
    benjamin frerebenjamin frere Posts: 20member
    <blockquote><hr>Originally posted by Kickaha:

    <strong>



    Not really. I had a QT player that played full screen or in window, with transparency as an option, in 267 lines of Cocoa, including comments and whitespace.



    For just playback, NSMovieView/NSMovie are fine. Editing, etc, are a bit more of a pain.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't thing that's a matter for Apple.
Sign In or Register to comment.